1. It's simple and free.
2. Your username cannot be used by guests.
3. You can personalise your profile picture.
4. Comments remain editable for 5 mins after submitting.
5. There are no captchas when you submit a comment.
6. You are informed of replies to your comments.
7. Your comments are archived for future reference.

Monster cougar stalks unarmed man

(5:02) Location: Vancouver Island, north of Campbell River. From YT: Adam was out shed hunting and setting up trail cameras and he looked over and saw a cougar starring at him, he was 15 meters at one point, this was filmed with a small pocket camera so forgive the footage, watch till the end, the cougar is not afraid and was definitely interested in eating him.

No problem. If the cougar begins to attack, call someone and they should get there in time to save you. No need for self defense.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(9 days ago)

Apparently you just say 'SHHHHH' and that will do it. Funny, in Canada there are videos like this of grown men scaring away grizzlies.

Of course if you're not Canadian and are just a terrified yank who is a lousy shot, you can go armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle, helmet, anti-stab vest, pepper spray, and back up hand guns, because it's your constitutional right to be a coward.

Apparently you just say 'SHHHHH' and that will do it. Funny, in Canada there are videos like this of grown men scaring away grizzlies.

Of course if you're not Canadian and are just a terrified yank who is a lousy shot, you can go armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle, helmet, anti-stab vest, pepper spray, and back up hand guns, because it's your constitutional right to be a coward.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(9 days ago)

Why do you add the word assault to rifle? Why not just semi-automatic rifle? Would you call a 6 shot revolver a semi-automatic assault revolver? It fires one shot for each pull of the trigger too.

Most people use 'assault rifle' to refer to sem-automatic high-calibre rifles with large capacity magazines.

So no, a revolver is not an assault weapon.

Now you know.

Any other things that are confusing you?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(8 days ago)

Yes, I have tons of questions. Specifically which calibre is considered a high-calibre? Although it probably makes more sense to use the word caliber. I ask because the AR 15 has many different models using all sorts of different rounds and I'd like to know which one to call an assault rifle and which ones to call a regular rifile. How many rounds does the magazine need to hold to be classified as an assault weapon? Would a rocket launcher be considered an assault weapon even though it holds only one rocket at a time?

Regarding the revolver, you would consider that a semi-automatic though, right?

Yes, I have tons of questions. Specifically which calibre is considered a high-calibre? Although it probably makes more sense to use the word caliber. I ask because the AR 15 has many different models using all sorts of different rounds and I'd like to know which one to call an assault rifle and which ones to call a regular rifile. How many rounds does the magazine need to hold to be classified as an assault weapon? Would a rocket launcher be considered an assault weapon even though it holds only one rocket at a time?

Regarding the revolver, you would consider that a semi-automatic though, right?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(8 days ago)

Sure, happy to help... so long as you actually learn.

We were talking assault RIFLES not assault weapons, not pistols, not rocket launchers. That's why I said 'assault rifle'. You need to get your head around that distinction.

Considered by who? For me, high-calibre would definitely include 45, .38, .358, but realistically anything more than .22. Obviously velocity is a factor too.

High capacity would certainly include anything holding 30 rounds or more, probably less.

These are my definitions. Some jurisdictions include any rifle with a folding or collapsible stock, a bayonet lug, or a barrel shroud, etc etc etc.

To make legislation, you're going to have to be brave and have an open discussion and come up with a common definition yourselves, like you would do with any law (had you the democratic power to change it.) For most nations, just because it's tricky doesn't mean to say it shouldn't or can't be done.

Clinton got around it by wisely just naming specific models of specific firearms.

We were talking assault RIFLES not assault weapons, not pistols, not rocket launchers. That's why I said 'assault rifle'. You need to get your head around that distinction.

Considered by who? For me, high-calibre would definitely include 45, .38, .358, but realistically anything more than .22. Obviously velocity is a factor too.

High capacity would certainly include anything holding 30 rounds or more, probably less.

These are my definitions. Some jurisdictions include any rifle with a folding or collapsible stock, a bayonet lug, or a barrel shroud, etc etc etc.

To make legislation, you're going to have to be brave and have an open discussion and come up with a common definition yourselves, like you would do with any law (had you the democratic power to change it.) For most nations, just because it's tricky doesn't mean to say it shouldn't or can't be done.

Clinton got around it by wisely just naming specific models of specific firearms.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(8 days ago)

You have some weird definitions then. Meaningless is “anything holding 30 rounds or more, probably less” because it’s not specific enough with the “probably less” component. You wouldn't call a rocket launcher as an assault rocket launcher but something as low as a .300 bullet that is slightly larger than the .22, you would. And you would call anything with a bayonet lug as an assault weapon. It would be difficult to go around killing hundreds of people with a bayonet.

You don't seem to know much about guns. Perhaps someone should tell you that it's common for a .22 shot from a pistol to bounce off windshields and they don't even penetrate the shell of an armadillo. I can tell you from my own experiences. Anyway, for self defense, you need a projectile that can stop whatever is trying to get to you. A simple .22 will not handle it. You may as well try to stop someone with a BB gun.

I like using my Taurus Judge revolver for self defense. It can use either Colt 45 or 410 gauge shells. Would you consider the 410 gauge an assault shell? It’s designed specifically for home defense where you might panic and not aim perfectly. You don’t need aim perfectly with a 410 shell (look it up). The gun still can use a Colt 45 which has a lot of power. Since it fires for each pull of the trigger and fits your criteria, you should consider that an assault pistol, right?

There are different types of bullets. You get cheap ones for target practice that have conical heads and then you get the ones that flatten out on impact for actual defense. Those bullets are more expensive so you don’t use them for practice but you would typically load your weapon with for every day defense. Does bullet type play any role in your definition if someone is using a regular weapon versus an assault weapon?

When you say “Some jurisdictions,“ that gives it the impression that the government (jurisdictions) have some legal definitions for some reason. Why would the government define a loose term like that unless they plan on creating a law around that term? Can you provide any links to a USA jurisdiction that defines “assault rifle” versus a regular rifle? Not saying you’re wrong, just surprised the USA would do that.

You have some weird definitions then. Meaningless is “anything holding 30 rounds or more, probably less” because it’s not specific enough with the “probably less” component. You wouldn't call a rocket launcher as an assault rocket launcher but something as low as a .300 bullet that is slightly larger than the .22, you would. And you would call anything with a bayonet lug as an assault weapon. It would be difficult to go around killing hundreds of people with a bayonet.

You don't seem to know much about guns. Perhaps someone should tell you that it's common for a .22 shot from a pistol to bounce off windshields and they don't even penetrate the shell of an armadillo. I can tell you from my own experiences. Anyway, for self defense, you need a projectile that can stop whatever is trying to get to you. A simple .22 will not handle it. You may as well try to stop someone with a BB gun.

I like using my Taurus Judge revolver for self defense. It can use either Colt 45 or 410 gauge shells. Would you consider the 410 gauge an assault shell? It’s designed specifically for home defense where you might panic and not aim perfectly. You don’t need aim perfectly with a 410 shell (look it up). The gun still can use a Colt 45 which has a lot of power. Since it fires for each pull of the trigger and fits your criteria, you should consider that an assault pistol, right?

There are different types of bullets. You get cheap ones for target practice that have conical heads and then you get the ones that flatten out on impact for actual defense. Those bullets are more expensive so you don’t use them for practice but you would typically load your weapon with for every day defense. Does bullet type play any role in your definition if someone is using a regular weapon versus an assault weapon?

When you say “Some jurisdictions,“ that gives it the impression that the government (jurisdictions) have some legal definitions for some reason. Why would the government define a loose term like that unless they plan on creating a law around that term? Can you provide any links to a USA jurisdiction that defines “assault rifle” versus a regular rifle? Not saying you’re wrong, just surprised the USA would do that.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(8 days ago)

What on earth are you talking about? I said they were my definitions, and how 'most people' use the definition assault rifle, and obviously if you turn it into legislation you would pin down one particular definition. Amazingly, I am not proposing that my comment on BoreMe is immediately ratified as a US law.

You keep trying to change the subject to 'assault weapons' which I haven't mentioned.

I also didn't mention anything about killing people with bayonets. I said that some definitions of assault rifle include having a bayonet lug. Do you know the difference between a lug and an actual bayonet? A lug is just the device that allows you attach the bayonet. (Next time, look it up.)

I know enough about guns to know that a .22 can very easily be fatal, and certainly is enough to stop someone in their tracks. Perhaps someone ought to show the damage you can do with a .22LR, for example. Again, I am not talking about pistols. Try to keep up.

'Jurisdictions' was reference to the fact that many states already some form of assault rifle or assault weapon ban and define the terms differently. I can't paste links, but look up Giffords Law Center which provides a detailed description of all the state-level assault weapon bans currently in place. Again, now you know.

Stop someone with a BB gun? Now you're talking! If you were being a big brave boy, you could use a non-lethal weapon to deter and injure rather than kill, which could not be commandeered by someone wanting to commit mass murder, which would mean that burglars and petty criminals wouldn't need to be armed with lethal force. Excellent! You're getting the idea of this, and beginning to conquer your fear! Keep thinking, and one day you'll be as brave as the inhabitants of just about every developed country!

What on earth are you talking about? I said they were my definitions, and how 'most people' use the definition assault rifle, and obviously if you turn it into legislation you would pin down one particular definition. Amazingly, I am not proposing that my comment on BoreMe is immediately ratified as a US law.

You keep trying to change the subject to 'assault weapons' which I haven't mentioned.

I also didn't mention anything about killing people with bayonets. I said that some definitions of assault rifle include having a bayonet lug. Do you know the difference between a lug and an actual bayonet? A lug is just the device that allows you attach the bayonet. (Next time, look it up.)

I know enough about guns to know that a .22 can very easily be fatal, and certainly is enough to stop someone in their tracks. Perhaps someone ought to show the damage you can do with a .22LR, for example. Again, I am not talking about pistols. Try to keep up.

'Jurisdictions' was reference to the fact that many states already some form of assault rifle or assault weapon ban and define the terms differently. I can't paste links, but look up Giffords Law Center which provides a detailed description of all the state-level assault weapon bans currently in place. Again, now you know.

Stop someone with a BB gun? Now you're talking! If you were being a big brave boy, you could use a non-lethal weapon to deter and injure rather than kill, which could not be commandeered by someone wanting to commit mass murder, which would mean that burglars and petty criminals wouldn't need to be armed with lethal force. Excellent! You're getting the idea of this, and beginning to conquer your fear! Keep thinking, and one day you'll be as brave as the inhabitants of just about every developed country!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(7 days ago)

I agree that a .22 CAN be fatal if you happen to hit someone in the right spot but it can also just annoy someone. Spend some time on liveleak to see where people are shot multiple times and still keep attacking. If .22 was fatal enough then the police and military would be using them as standard issue.

I agree that a .22 CAN be fatal if you happen to hit someone in the right spot but it can also just annoy someone. Spend some time on liveleak to see where people are shot multiple times and still keep attacking. If .22 was fatal enough then the police and military would be using them as standard issue.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

TheBob(6 days ago)

Interesting. Here's a link to what happened when Bobby Kennedy was annoyed by a .22 LINK

Oh good, done some research have you? I love helping you like this. Now you've learned .22s can be fatal, but in most civilised countries, civilians aren't looking for 'fatal'. How often is killing someone, or threatening to kill them, the only means of self-defence? The police and particularly the military need to have 'fatal' as a daily option and they are trained to handle that sort of power.

So yes, as you now know a .22 could be fatal, and yes it could just annoy someone, but far more likely is something in between where it injures them enough to stop their actions and hinder their escape, allowing them to face justice. Sounds just about spot on for anyone who doesn't have so much fear that they want the opportunity to kill anyone they're scared of.

Oh good, done some research have you? I love helping you like this. Now you've learned .22s can be fatal, but in most civilised countries, civilians aren't looking for 'fatal'. How often is killing someone, or threatening to kill them, the only means of self-defence? The police and particularly the military need to have 'fatal' as a daily option and they are trained to handle that sort of power.

So yes, as you now know a .22 could be fatal, and yes it could just annoy someone, but far more likely is something in between where it injures them enough to stop their actions and hinder their escape, allowing them to face justice. Sounds just about spot on for anyone who doesn't have so much fear that they want the opportunity to kill anyone they're scared of.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(7 days ago)

Even less-than-lethal weapons are illegal in the UK such as stun guns. Glad I don't live in a country where a simple human right to defend yourself is taken away. You believe healthcare is a human right and we believe you should be able to defend youself as a basic human right. At least we can buy healthcare if we want to as an option but you cannot pay to defend yourself.

Even less-than-lethal weapons are illegal in the UK such as stun guns. Glad I don't live in a country where a simple human right to defend yourself is taken away. You believe healthcare is a human right and we believe you should be able to defend youself as a basic human right. At least we can buy healthcare if we want to as an option but you cannot pay to defend yourself.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(7 days ago)

The USA doesn't offer the 'simple human right' to defend yourself with a tank or with nuclear missiles. The UK doesn't offer the 'simple human right' to defend yourself with a firearm. At least in the UK's case, we don't want it, I guess because we're not that scared. There has been massive support for tighter gun control, and in a democracy like ours (untainted by financial corruption like the USA), we can achieve it literally within days.

The truth is people in the UK defend themselves all the time... it's just they're not scared to do it with their fists or a cricket bat. You should grow a pair and stop cowering behind your guns. We don't need the option of killing someone who is probably only interested in jewellery, particularly not when it means a petty felon is forced to turn up armed.

In the UK, if you have a US level of fear and want to pay to defend yourself, you can invest in home security that reduces crime, not increases it. Try it some day and give your next generation a chance at freedom and a future.

The USA doesn't offer the 'simple human right' to defend yourself with a tank or with nuclear missiles. The UK doesn't offer the 'simple human right' to defend yourself with a firearm. At least in the UK's case, we don't want it, I guess because we're not that scared. There has been massive support for tighter gun control, and in a democracy like ours (untainted by financial corruption like the USA), we can achieve it literally within days.

The truth is people in the UK defend themselves all the time... it's just they're not scared to do it with their fists or a cricket bat. You should grow a pair and stop cowering behind your guns. We don't need the option of killing someone who is probably only interested in jewellery, particularly not when it means a petty felon is forced to turn up armed.

In the UK, if you have a US level of fear and want to pay to defend yourself, you can invest in home security that reduces crime, not increases it. Try it some day and give your next generation a chance at freedom and a future.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(6 days ago)

Many people own tanks as collectors of WW2 memorabilia.

Do you really consider the UK as a democracy when you don’t vote for your monarch, prime minister, or anyone in the House of Lords? Unbelievable!

Wouldn't you consider a stun gun a less-than-lethal method for defending yourself? It’s better than a knife which could kill people. So why would they be banned in the UK other than the government not wanting their citizens to defend themselves?

Do you really consider the UK as a democracy when you don’t vote for your monarch, prime minister, or anyone in the House of Lords? Unbelievable!

Wouldn't you consider a stun gun a less-than-lethal method for defending yourself? It’s better than a knife which could kill people. So why would they be banned in the UK other than the government not wanting their citizens to defend themselves?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(6 days ago)

Owning a tank or an antiquated machine gun as memorabilia is not the same as being allowed to use one for self-defence. Obviously. Something else you didn't know? Your government chooses to deny you that right. Why? Because however scared you get, Americans don't need a tank or a machine gun to defend themselves. Similarly, Brits don't need a gun to defend themselves, or even a stun gun or a knife. I know to someone with your level of fear, it's crazy, but that's normal in most developed countries where consumers haven't been whipped up into a hysterical fear of everything.

It's a different debate, but the UK is clearly more democratic than the USA as recent events have shown us. The only perceived "undemocratic" part of the British system has absolutely no impact on how our country is run on a day to day level. Meanwhile, the undemocratic parts of the USA system (an archaic and rigid constitution forced upon you, massive pervasive financial corruption, voter suppression, gerrymandering, the EC debacle, foreign intervention etc. etc. etc.) are not just an overwhelming day to day force in US politics, but they are a huge barrier to achieving real change as you are so cleverly showing everyone.

But don't take my word for it. The UK comes 14th out of 167 in the 2017 Democracy Index (Economist Intelligence Unit). Disappointing. The USA comes 21st, higher than I thought, just below Uruguay. Find out what you're talking about before making a fool of yourself yet again.

So if you want, you can tell yourself that the embarrassing fear-led approach to gun control forced on you is actually what you really wanted. Fine, but don't pretend you can change it. It's not down to you.

Owning a tank or an antiquated machine gun as memorabilia is not the same as being allowed to use one for self-defence. Obviously. Something else you didn't know? Your government chooses to deny you that right. Why? Because however scared you get, Americans don't need a tank or a machine gun to defend themselves. Similarly, Brits don't need a gun to defend themselves, or even a stun gun or a knife. I know to someone with your level of fear, it's crazy, but that's normal in most developed countries where consumers haven't been whipped up into a hysterical fear of everything.

It's a different debate, but the UK is clearly more democratic than the USA as recent events have shown us. The only perceived "undemocratic" part of the British system has absolutely no impact on how our country is run on a day to day level. Meanwhile, the undemocratic parts of the USA system (an archaic and rigid constitution forced upon you, massive pervasive financial corruption, voter suppression, gerrymandering, the EC debacle, foreign intervention etc. etc. etc.) are not just an overwhelming day to day force in US politics, but they are a huge barrier to achieving real change as you are so cleverly showing everyone.

But don't take my word for it. The UK comes 14th out of 167 in the 2017 Democracy Index (Economist Intelligence Unit). Disappointing. The USA comes 21st, higher than I thought, just below Uruguay. Find out what you're talking about before making a fool of yourself yet again.

So if you want, you can tell yourself that the embarrassing fear-led approach to gun control forced on you is actually what you really wanted. Fine, but don't pretend you can change it. It's not down to you.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(7 days ago)

Not even allowed a machine gun! Gun control has gone out of control. What about our human right to have machine guns?

You should know what you’re talking about before you join a discussion. Machine guns are allowed in the USA. Look it up. As long as it was manufactured before 1986 and registered with the ATF, you’re good to go. However, there are less than 500,000 of them available so they are expensive — not Illegal.

You should know what you’re talking about before you join a discussion. Machine guns are allowed in the USA. Look it up. As long as it was manufactured before 1986 and registered with the ATF, you’re good to go. However, there are less than 500,000 of them available so they are expensive — not Illegal.